N.U. Beg, C.J. - (1.) This writ petition arises out of proceedings under the UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter called the Act). It is stated in the writ petition that notices Under Sec. 9 of the Act were issued on 15 -1 -1962 and objections of the parties were decided by the Consolidation Officer on 27 -8 -1964. The first appeal against the order of the Consolidation Officer was dismissed by the Settlement Officer in respect of plot No. 3047, which is the plot in dispute at this stage, in 7 -10 -1964 and a revision against the said order was allowed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation on 29 -9 -1965. The review application filed by the Petitioners was dismissed on 15 -11 -1965. In the present writ petition it is prayed that the orders passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in revision dated 29 -9 -1965 and in review dated 15 -11 -1965 be quashed.
(2.) The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that in the present case the proviso to Sec. 17(1)(?) of the UP Consolidation of Holdings (Amendment) Act No. VIII of 1963 being inapplicable the proceedings would be governed by the old Act as notices Under Sec. 9 of the Act were issued prior to 8 -3 -1963 and Clause (2) of Sec. 47(1) would apply to the present case. This argument is supported by a decision of this Court in the case of Smt. Nanka v/s. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Ors. 1966 RD 26. According to the view taken in this case the revision application against the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation would not be maintainable. The remedy available to the aggrieved party in such a case would be a second appeal Under Sec. 11(2) of the Act as it stood prior to its amendment by Act VIII of 1963. In this view of the matter the Deputy Director of Consolidation would have no jurisdiction to entertain the revision application and this writ petition has substance. No doubt the second appeal by the aggrieved party would be barred by limitation now, but on behalf of the Petitioners it is stated that it would be open to the aggrieved party to file a second appeal with an application for condonation of delay and after a second appeal with an application of condonation of delay is filed before the District Deputy Director of Consolidation Under Sec. 11(2) of the Act it would be for the District Deputy Director of Consolidation to dispose it of on merits.
(3.) I accordingly allow this writ petition and quash the orders of the Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 29 -9 -1965 and 15 -11 -1965. As the opposite parties are not represented before me I make no order as to costs.;